53. The Court notes that Article 817 of the Respondent State’s Code14 of Civil, Commercial, Social, Administrative and Auditing Procedure provides: The appeal is lodged with the Court of Appeal and is judged on its own merits. 54. The Court further notes that evidence is a written document produced before the courts by the parties in support of their claims15 and emphasises that the appeal submissions constitute a procedural document as set out in Article 896,16 which provides: The appeal submissions must expressly state the party’s claims and the grounds on which those claims are based. 55. The Court observes that it emerges from the Applicant’s procedural filing before it that he did not file the appeal submissions allowing the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal to investigate and judge his case before it. 56. Accordingly, it holds that the Applicant did not exhaust the said remedy as he failed to take the necessary steps to do so. 57. Accordingly, the Court upholds the Respondent State’s objection on this point and declares the Applicant’s complaints relating to his dismissal inadmissible. ii. Proceedings against the Applicant’s lawyers 58. The Court notes that the Applicant’s action before the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court was against the two lawyers breach of the duty of probity imposed by the Constitution and their professional ethics by not following his instructions as regards the content of their submissions and by 14 Act No. 2008-07 of 28 February 2011 on the Code of Civil, Commercial, Social, Administrative and Audit Procedure 15 Gérard Cornu, Vocabulaire juridique, 12th updated edition, Quadrige, PUF, January 2018, p. 1617. 16 Law No. 2008-07 of 28 February 2011 on the Code of Civil, Commercial, Social, Administrative and Auditing Procedure. 16